Certain phrases in a newspaper can definitely stand out. For example, when you refer to some place as a “lost cause” you imply that it cannot govern itself at all. Pakistan was referred to as a land of lost causes recently.

More propaganda came out of the New York Times with regards to this. Pakistan is a state where promises are broken and militants prevail, where the threat from barbarians is “existential.” The emerging narrative in Washington is that Pakistan is not a

This is a combination of


and bullshit.


Obama’s problem, conveyed to us by the NYTimes, is that he does not want Afghans and Pakistanis to see this fight as America’s and not their own, and he wants Americans to realize the need for intervention. Meanwhile Pakistani President Asif Al Zadari is caught in a double-bind, because he promises both “peace” to appease the Taliban, and “war” to appease Washington. The Christian missionaries at the Bagram Torture Airport will advise “you cannot serve two masters”. Now Obama cannot trust Zadari to be “tough on terror,” but the militants cannot trust Zadari because he breaks peace accords. For example, after Taliban forces lashed out over a peace settlement, which the Pakistani Army broke, the Taliban explained their position to TimesOnline:

Muslim Khan, a Taleban spokesman, claimed that the militants controlled 90 per cent of the valley and said that their actions were in response to army violations of the controversial peace deal struck by the Government in February. He accused the Government of acting under pressure from the US. President. Zardari flew to Washington yesterday to brief President Obama about his strategy for dealing with the Islamist onslaught.